Evolution Debunked Pt3: Tree Ring Dating not Logical Beyond 3500 years

[fresniak]

You forgot to mention another problem with tree rings dating. Trees can produce quite sometimes 4-5 rings per year, if the all measurement is based on the assumption of just 1 ring per year trees which look very old may as well be not that old.

[MrChristainchris]

has what you say been peer reviewed and by who if it was.

[angellicvoices]

I dont understand this video. Why on earth would you want to match up two inconsistent trees? Wouldnt you want to try and find two with the same area position, same soil etc? Afterall thats the only way you can find signature growth patterns that match up. Inconsistent trees will obviously not match probably any of thier ring patterns and is a waste of scientists time and will not produce an age. Only ones that match up will have distinct signatures.

[ndrthrdr1]

It's encouraging to me to see that the Likes/Dislikes ratio on this video (so far) shows that about 2/3 of viewers don't fall for the faulty arguments on which this video is based.

[MelindaGood]

it is not the thickness, but the patterns over many years with RELATIVE thickness that determine a match. based on this, even in a warped shape tree, it should hold as relative thickness for that one part will still be the same. However they fail to see that matches could be by chance in many cases. I feel that it is a well thought out theory, but that there is also reasonable doubt as to its accuracy.

[jnoort]

How do you explain consistency between tree ring dates based on the chronology and the c14 dates?

Have you ever asked a person working in the field of dendrochronology what he thinks about your objections?

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@jnoort Usually, when I present my objections to professionals (typically college professors), they agree that the science is lacking. Most of them have strong opinions about the damage bad theory does to real science.

[jnoort]

@KnowJesusKnowPeace

College professors? What kind of subjects did they study? Did you ask anyone who studied tree-rings themselves?

Concerning the left side of your board: The tree ring pattern could be based on the average thickness within one and the same tree.

Concerning the right side: Do you think no dendrochronologist collecting samples in forests has never seen the inside of a tree that was cut down?

[MelindaGood]

@jnoort because the validity of both dating systems relies on one another. If you walk into a class of small unknowing children and tell them that the sky is green while pointing to the blue sky, and later you give them unnamed colors of crayons. each one will grab the blue crayon color the sky, but insist that they used green and that the sky IS green. it matches up by definition of what it is not by any measurable standard as we made up the standard ourselves.

[burb72]

oldest tree is 4700 yrs.

[SqueakerAlpha]

Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) uses the FACT that a tree will form 2 rings per year on average. One ring indicates rapid growth, the other slow growth during winter. The sequence of rings and their thicknesses can be used to match growth patterns over a period of years and allows a matching between trees with overlapping ages, thus extending the number of years which can be counted directly.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@SqueakerAlpha 2 rings per year "on average"?

Thanks for the textbook definition of dendrochronology. It fails to add to the conversation, however. Two trees, in the same field, can have different growth in the same season based on: overall health of the tree, difference in soil below, taller trees near to it (that is a big one!), having a root cut (burrowing animals like to eat bark), or some other reason. D-ology only laps THREE ring-sets from two trees. Adjacent rings need not match.

[SqueakerAlpha]

@KnowJesusKnowPeace Do you have a reference for the three ring sets claim ?. My book on tree ring dating specifies every ring in the matching section must match within a specified tolerance. You can visually avoid bad sections of a ring, where a branch is growing for example.

[jdigitalseven]

@MyGodMoreGooder

You are confusing macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the ONLY form that can be observed, the other 5 in no way shape or form are observable. Most use the evidence for Micro evolution to "prove" the rest.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@jdigitalseven Good comment, thanks.

[websnarf]

@jdigitalseven : What the hell does that even mean? There is only one kind of evolution and species evolution *can* be observed. The fossil record is just big collection of "observations". If you have an alternative explanation for the following transitional fossils: Sinornis, Ambulocetus, Eohippus, or Homo georgicus, (I.e., if you can tell me what "species" they are) I am all ears.

[MelindaGood]

@websnarf you can only prove from a fossil that a creature existed, not that it had any children or that its children were different. there are plenty of fossils that seem to show evolution, but only small steps can be seen, and never one species changing to another. The only evolution that has been witnessed is that of domestication of animals such as the dog from a wolf, but a dog and a wolf can still have babies together though if the mother is the dog it may kill her if too small...

[websnarf]

@MelindaGood : If you see enough fossils you can see how some we descendants of others. And the point is that you can see *many* small steps. The species changes doesn't happen in any small step, but rather a very long series of them. We have also seen direct evolution in the Italian lizards and nylon eating bacteria.

The evidence for evolution is extremely good. Please look up Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" for more complete examples. (Including Whales, horses and humans)

[MelindaGood]

@websnarf you still do not understand that you cannot prove what happens in life from a dead thing. maybe in autopsy, but fossils do not prove anything. If I were to go to a junk yard I could probably come up with a reasonable line of objects that would prove that a spoon evolved into a piano. You know, because it became a bowl, and then a bath tub, and then a chest of drawers with fancy knobs, but then you can see that in one case the knobs aligned more and then a piano! wow! nobel prize!

[websnarf]

@MelindaGood : Examination of fossils *IS* a kind of autopsy. Junk yards don't have the remnants of living things in them, and in any event no you *CAN'T* show a line from a spoon to a piano, because nothing connects them. There's no prize for that. Living structures come only from living structures -- so if you see partial similarity and evidence for animals that don't exist today, then you need an explanation for it. And evolution is the only game in town.

[gregrutz]

@MelindaGood Fossils prove something lived in the past. Most of the things that lived in the past are extinct, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers, no Neaderthals.

Dinosaur nests prove that the eggs were cared for and Dinosaurs had nesting areas.

You might be surprised what they know from fossils, incl. spores and seeds [when they finally evolved].

[MelindaGood]

It is also good to note that species in a religious form is much different from a science form. By science two salmon populations that swim in the same river and COULD breed together by way of artificial collection and fertilization, are considered differing species because of HOW they choose breeding grounds and their unwillingness to breed anywhere but the predetermined grounds. religion calls a fish a fish and a horse(zebra, mule, donky) a horse

[websnarf]

Trees that get no sun, die young. Furthermore, dendrochronology is a highly *statistical* science. They don't just line up a couple trees. They try to find as much overlapping as possible. Finally, the signature they are looking for is *WEATHER PATTERNS*, so even if a tree were occluded, the relative ring size would still correspond to seasonal variations uniformly from trees of the same area.

If you want to see data, why don't you just *LOOK UP* the data?

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

@websnarf I have looked at the data. The Pine tree studies done here in California hinge entirely on a link using the bristlecone pine. Unfortunately, the one group which links the recent lines (legitimate) to another line (also legit) is modified using three different processes- which were not applied to the other data.

In short, they tweeked, squeezed and factored the data until it fit. This is 100% illegitimate and is very, very faulty science.

[websnarf]

@KnowJesusKnowPeace : I highly doubt what you are saying. You are citing no papers. I am not an expert, but even I can tell you are still failing to acknowledge how straight statistics would alleviate your (non-)complaint. The trees are obviously also carbon dated which, at the very least, would give the approximate ordering, meaning patterns could be matched more reliably.

Data falsification is a pretty serious charge. You cannot just say it, without citations.

[coolvideo28]

All the evolution dating techniqes are based on there ASSUMING that everything on earth has remained constant the same since we know it hasnt plus we know ASSUMING is not science, we know all the Dating techniqes are wrong and since there is no millions of years there is no evolution PERIOD

[websnarf]

@coolvideo28 : Its not an assumption. If you take multiple different kinds of dating techniques which use independent techniques, then confirmation of each other demonstrates that they cannot be anomalous, unless they are simultaneously anomalous and rigged up regardless of what length of dates they measure. Basically if you have multiple decay curves, then they can't always match up over different dates (which they do) unless the starting conditions and decay are as expected.

[a1mint]

KnowJesusKnowPeace: your logic isn't correct I think and I don't think you understand how tree ring dating works.

In your argument you're focusing on how there would be inconsistencies with the thickness of a ring in a tree because of various factors like the type of tree, the position and shape of tree.

But how it really works is by extracting a signature of ring thickness percentages of a single tree and then matching that up with the signature of another tree.

Think in relative terms.

[a1mint]

So, as one tree might have less growth, a year with less growth would also result in less growth in a nearby tree. Even from a completely different type of tree. So you don't even need to compare the same type of trees.

If the next year has more favorable weather, both trees would have a thicker ring compared to its own previous ring. Think of the signature as something like a series like this:

+10% of average of own tree

+15%

-5%

-2%

+5%

+3%

With enough overlap, it's work quite well.

[a1mint]

test

[OscerMeyerWiener]

I think people on this channel have posted a legitimate challenge. You have a problem with evolution; but what about Geology? What about Botany? What about Astronomy? Do you believe Geologists are practicing a false science? A Geologist will tell you the world is much older than the bible says. An astronomer can tell you the earth is 4 billion years old. How about Hinduism? Or Buddhism? Or Zoroastrianism? Or Judaism? You obviously believe what you want, and not what is correct. WAKE UP!

[MyGodMoreGooder]

I guess your next video will debunk geology.  Geologist have proven that Earth is billions of years old. Ever wondered why the continents look like puzzle pieces? I am sure you will find a biblical reason for it.

Then after you disprove geologists, you will disprove all of biology.

After biology, you will disprove astronomy.

Its amazing how much knowledge religious people will discard to believe their mythical dogma. Pure ignorance.

[joshuatmathews]

You fundamentally misunderstand how this process works. And, it CANNOT be learned in a few days. If you are actually an engineer, you should know that.

How could you possibly believe that you picked up on this huge, obvious defect in reasoning that thousands of scientists around the world didn't.

Your arguments are akin to Kirk Cameron's video "proving" intelligent design because bananas have grooves that fit well into the human hand. (Search it). I guess God just screwed up on apples.

[OscerMeyerWiener]

this guy is a clown...it is so sad, that people convince themselves of such nonesense.

[TheGamanic]

@joshuatmathews Or coconuts...

[MyGodMoreGooder]

Three videos, around ten minutes, and you debunked evolution? Evolution is a proven fact. Do you know why whales are mammals, have lungs, have hind leg's? You are in major denial....This is VERY irresponsible, dogmatic none-sense. I think you force your dogma into scientific evidence. Go to a history museum, stop the madness! The world is not as simple as you and your faith believe it to be. It is far more complicated!

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

Life is complicated, it is true. But, something as simple as tree ring dating can be studied and learned in a few days. It is very basic.

When people reject God, they are unable to understand that satan-worshiping people wish for others to reject God and thereby go to Hell. They consider this service to their master, satan.

It is you who have accepted dogma. Did you understand this video?

[MyGodMoreGooder]

Do not threaten me with your religious scare tactics. Hell is a tool that religious loons use to submit, coerce and force propaganda.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -Albert Einstein

[roninrunnin]

How about ice ring data from Antarctica and Greenland?

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

I watched Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'. When he said that one layer equates to 1 year, I doubted it, as I have seen multiple layers on my car in Philadelphia.

However, when he said there were 300 layers, I began to celebrate- until he did the math and said that 300 layers equals 300,000 years.

1 times 300 equals 300,000?

People distort their data.

[Saukko31]

Tree ring dating goes uninterrupted more than 11,000 years. In the past we had shorter time period covered because science advances continuously, do you understand? New discoveries are made and even that date is likely to grow.

Scientists are well aware of problems and know how to avoid them. They look for similar patterns, marks from forest fires, or years of slow or fast grow for example. This would affect all trees in the area, regardless where they grew.

[imyoursuperior2]

Good scientists such as Albert Einstein actually tried to debunk his own theories so he was absolutely sure he was right. Heh, look at evolutionists today, they do the opposite, desperately trying to defend their theories!

[JmkLcAeJsm]

Moron. Of course there are scientists who are critical of evolution, books like 'the biochemical challenge to evolution' demonstrate that.

But they have been refuted time and time again, because evolution is a demonstrable reality. See ERV's for dye in the wool proof.

[displaced36]

so why is it that people stopped "evolving" lol why are eskimo's not covered in fur at birth? certainly mankind would still be evolving in order to increase chances of survival if evolution is true.

the only similarities to evolution that we can see are only same specie interbreeding.

that usually creates a different, and useless animal of its own species. one thing it never does is create a new species of its own.

humans and monkeys cannot procreate, therefore not of the same species.

:)

[JmkLcAeJsm]

Evolution = Reproduction with variation + Selective pressure + time. With humans these days, very little selective pressure.

Having offspring of a different species would violate evolutionary theory. Evolution merely predicts that characteristics of populations should vary. Speciation events occurr when populations are split.

Humans and monkeys are not the same species, although we are of the same family (monkeys), Kingdom (animalia) and phyla (vertebrates) and share a common ancestor.

[displaced36]

so are we done evolving then? it is logical for a christian to believe that god made us just the way he wanted us to be. but as someone who believes in evolution do you think mankind is made perfect by evolution, or do we have room to improve? we have had time. and we still have alot of weaknesses that end up cutting our lives short.

macroevolution is highly unlikely to even be possible, even if it were to be possible.. it still would not disprove creation first coming from god.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it only applies where Reproduction with variaion + Selective pressure apply, it does not make things perfect.

Macro evolution must mean speciation, and typing 'observed instances of speciation' into google will show you that it has happened, many times.

[KnowJesusKnowPeace]

The ability of an animal to change slightly to adapt to environmental and survival requirements is part of the Creator's design. This serves to "preserve the created type".

One type does not change into another via mutation, population separation, or any other natural method.

[Ishta5]

this shows that you do not understand evolution, one, in order for fur to evolve it would require that Eskimos without fur do not survive. There is not advantage of being more hairy that others at all.

[displaced36]

sorry... did not expect anyone to take the fur thing literally.

my point was, humans do not evolve, can not. never have, and never will.

[displaced36]

we can adapt, but the design will not change.

[TopSpeedCGT]

Uh? The design of humans can't change? So it's just really good luck that different races of humans ended up in climates which best suit their physical traits?

You don't find it just slightly convenient that black/brown people originate from areas on Earth that get lots of intense sunlight. And that races with light complextions originate for areas with weaker and less sunlight?

[MelindaGood]

@TopSpeedCGT you should look up the word adapt before responding.